Identification, Images, & Information
For Insects, Spiders & Their Kin
For the United States & Canada
Clickable Guide
Moths Butterflies Flies Caterpillars Flies Dragonflies Flies Mantids Cockroaches Bees and Wasps Walkingsticks Earwigs Ants Termites Hoppers and Kin Hoppers and Kin Beetles True Bugs Fleas Grasshoppers and Kin Ticks Spiders Scorpions Centipedes Millipedes

Upcoming Events

Discussion of 2018 gathering

Photos of insects and people from the 2015 gathering in Wisconsin, July 10-12

Photos of insects and people from the 2014 gathering in Virginia, June 4-7.

Photos of insects and people from the 2013 gathering in Arizona, July 25-28

Photos of insects and people from the 2012 gathering in Alabama

Photos of insects and people from the 2011 gathering in Iowa

Photos from the 2010 Workshop in Grinnell, Iowa

Photos from the 2009 gathering in Washington

Nomadinae? - Neolarra vigilans

Nomadinae? - Neolarra vigilans
Santa Fe Dam Recreation Area, Irwindale, Los Angeles County, California, USA
May 14, 2007
Size: ~ 4mm
Photographed a year ago, I'm submitting this as a reminder to myself to search for these fascinating little bees. Help with an ID would be appreciated.
They're moving about between disk florets of Encelia californica.

Images of this individual: tag all
Nomadinae? - Neolarra vigilans Nomadinae? - Neolarra vigilans Nomadinae? - Neolarra vigilans

Moved from Neolarra.

Should be N. vigilans
as that is the only Phileremulus known from southern California

Nice contribution
Do you have another image? Or, can you add a close up of one of these so it shows well in a thumbnail when browsing?

Nomadinae: Neolarrini

Cleptoparasites of Perdita

My best guess is that these are N. vigilans, a highly variable species, based in part on my perception of the shape of the axillae

Thanks so much, John -
A new one for me, and I'm learning. I see that N. vigilans is in subgenus Phileremulus (Michener (2007). Still the case?

it is the type species of subgenus Phileremulus
the key feature of this subgenus is the produced (not rounded) axilla. I think is visible in your images.

I prefer not to recognize formal subgenera in Neolarra because subgenus Neolarra seems to have no distinctive characters other than lack of those for subgenus Phileremulus

John, I'm very late to this conversation, but in my revision I didn't recognize subgenera in the manuscript, but was told in no uncertain terms by my advisor to keep them so as not to "offend Michener." Of course, he wouldn't have been at all offended, but as a young student I had not met him yet and caved to pressure. Besides the reasoning you mention, there is such a gradual gradation in the shape of the axillae that it seemed silly to arbitrarily segregate the species into subgenera. I welcome any attempts to undo my damage. :-)

Thanks for the clarification,
I also was able to see the produced axilla, though only after you had pointed out that character.

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.